Growth in every postcode and hope in every heart are Andy Burnham visions left blurry by the White House orange maniac, but the Prime Minister needs fresh answers when the electorate is in no mood for excuses.
Donald Trump’s deranged war secretary Pete Hegseth proclaiming ahead of the PM’s first meeting this week with a President wrecking our economy that Europe must end an Iran war the US started signalled no meeting of minds.
Which is why Burnham either walks the bold talk by raising taxes on the wealthy to improve living standards and public services for the majority or soaring oil prices and inflation will choke household finances and growth.
Nor was Women and Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson touring the TV and radio studios to blame Trump a get-out-of-jail-free card for Burnham or Chancellor John Healey in the Budget on October 28.
Labour MPs tell me Burnham’s earned them doorstep hearings in heartlands and the slamming of doors in faces during the Starmer era is over. To sustain that, never mind win back lost voters, folk must feel the Labour government is on their side.
Half of that is exploding fantasy windfalls of Kemi Badenoch dangling a £9billion gift for the country’s richest 5% should Inheritance Tax be scrapped, the Tory leader intent on something-for-nothing wealthfare. Even the Lib Dems are playing the same game, wealthier households benefiting most from a floated 10p Fuel Duty cut.
Reform policies routinely featherbed moneybags like Farage, rather than working-class voters whom the twisting elite pose as championing but, as ever, migrant-bashing racism is the party’s currency.
Article continues below
The other half is demonstrating Labour remains the best bet for Britain by delivering a shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people.
Nobody believes that will be easy or trigger attacks from the likes of plastic patriot Jim Ratcliffe, a flipper who displayed his true colours by backing Brexit, collecting a knighthood then jumping ship to Monaco to avoid paying his fair dues to Britain.
But the hard choice is to be bold, radical, or risk the country losing faith and lurching to the hard right. Over to you, Andy.
Giving Reform red card for failure over racism
Sunderland are a vibrant, diverse, multicultural team of migrant footballers from around the world playing in Europe for the first time since 1973 so who in the city wouldn’t show racism the red card?
Reform council numbskulls is the dispiriting answer after hard-right tinpot politicians feeding on division and hostility withdrew support for the official Show Racism the Red Card group’s Wear Red Day on Friday, October 16.
Talk about scoring own goals when the club itself so enthusiastically embraces the initiative and the likes of Robin Roefs, left, Nordi Mukiele, Granit Xhaka and Brian Brobbey coming over here to make our saves, put in our tackles, play our passes and (I wish more often) score our goals is fantastic for Mackems and the area.
My worry is these reactionary councillors might next want us out of the Europa League, declaring Sunderland must never be run by an unelected foreign Uefa.
Article continues below
Hounded Piddington chef Rachel Marsh requiring protection from intolerant neighbours and far-right bullies is puncturing the jolly “Passport to Pimlico” vibe.
She too opposes using an old Army camp to process asylum seekers but her crime in their eyes was to voice unease on Newsnight to the wider weaponisation of hostility to people wanting to start a fresh life in Britain.
That New Zealand-born Marsh, who married a son of Windrush parents, was forced to meet police to discuss her safety because she’s worried about racism is shaming. Those villagers embracing masked black shirts should think again or they’ll destroy their own cause.
“Given that their aim is to protect women and children,” she observed, “it is quite ironic that they are using aggression like this towards me for speaking up against racism.”
Article continues below
Ginger Foreign Office heart-throb Stewart Wood loved telling us about being mistaken in Westminster tube station by Japanese tourists for Ed Sheeran and pestered into posing for selfies.
My 20p says the Labour peer will grimace during future retellings of that crazy moment after the superstar singer cowardly failed to stand up for rapper Macklemore axed from a US tour after shouting: “Free Palestine” at a gig. Silence over the Gaza genocide is complicity.
Nobody seriously believes Macklemore would’ve been dropped for speaking against war crimes in Sudan or yelling “Free Ukraine”. Sheeran’s subsequent “my heart is broken” inadequate half-apology smacked of self-pity.
KEVIN MAGUIRE: ‘Andy Burnham Must Be Bold in First Meeting With Donald Trump’
Prime Minister Andy Burnham is preparing for one of the most closely watched meetings of his early premiership as he prepares to meet US President Donald Trump in New York during the United Nations General Assembly. Ahead of the encounter, Daily Mirror columnist Kevin Maguire has argued that Burnham should adopt a bold approach rather than simply seek an easy diplomatic exchange.
Maguire’s headline describes Trump in highly critical terms and presents his meeting with Burnham as a test of the British prime minister’s political confidence. Those descriptions are Maguire’s characterisation, rather than an established factual description of the US president.
The meeting itself is significant regardless of the political commentary surrounding it. Burnham became prime minister in July 2026 and is meeting Trump in person for the first time. The two leaders have already spoken by telephone, but their New York encounter provides an opportunity to establish a direct working relationship.
A First Face-to-Face Encounter
The meeting comes at a complicated moment in the relationship between Britain and the United States.
The UK and US remain closely connected through defence, intelligence, trade and longstanding diplomatic relationships. At the same time, the two governments have differences over several international issues, meaning that Burnham’s first meeting with Trump is unlikely to be a purely ceremonial occasion.
According to reports, the two leaders are expected to discuss Ukraine and wider international security issues. Burnham has recently travelled to Kyiv and has been pressing for additional international support for Ukraine, including stronger air-defence capabilities.
Other disagreements could also arise, including Britain’s position on the Middle East, the future of the Chagos Islands and the UK’s relationship with Europe.
The Financial Times reported that British officials have been emphasising the importance of maintaining strong UK-US cooperation, particularly in defence and intelligence, despite differences between the two leaders.
Maguire’s Argument for a Tougher Approach
Maguire’s central argument is that Burnham should not approach the meeting simply as an exercise in personal diplomacy.
Instead, he argues that the prime minister should be prepared to put Britain’s interests clearly before the American president.
That approach reflects a wider debate over how Britain should manage its relationship with Washington during Trump’s presidency.
For decades, British governments have generally regarded close cooperation with the United States as a central pillar of foreign and defence policy. But maintaining that relationship does not necessarily mean agreeing with Washington on every major issue.
The challenge for Burnham is therefore to combine cooperation with the ability to disagree when British interests require it.
This is particularly relevant because Burnham has previously made strongly critical comments about Trump.
A History of Political Tension
Burnham and Trump have not always spoken warmly about each other.
Before becoming prime minister, Burnham was openly critical of Trump’s political movement and the atmosphere surrounding American politics.
French newspaper Le Monde reported that Burnham had previously described the political atmosphere in the United States under Trump as “poisonous”. Trump, meanwhile, initially described Burnham as extremely liberal after he entered Downing Street.
The tone subsequently softened somewhat. Trump has more recently described Burnham as “a very nice guy”, according to Le Monde’s account of their exchanges.
That evolution is important because personal relationships can influence diplomatic discussions, particularly when leaders are meeting for the first time.
Burnham therefore enters the meeting with a complicated political history involving Trump but also with a responsibility to maintain Britain’s strategic relationship with Washington.
The Chagos Islands Dispute
One of the most sensitive subjects is likely to be the Chagos Islands.
Britain agreed to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius while retaining a long-term lease allowing the UK and United States to continue operating the military base on Diego Garcia.
The agreement has faced opposition from the Trump administration.
Trump previously described the arrangement as a “big mistake”, raising concerns about the security implications for the Diego Garcia base. The British parliamentary process needed to implement the agreement has subsequently been paused.
Burnham has nevertheless reaffirmed Britain’s intention to find a solution.
On Monday, he spoke with Mauritian Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam and said Britain remained committed to securing the long-term operation of Diego Garcia while working with both Mauritius and the United States.
The British government has also confirmed that Burnham and Ramgoolam agreed that their foreign ministers should meet during the UN General Assembly.
That places Burnham in a delicate diplomatic position.
He must address American security concerns while maintaining Britain’s relationship with Mauritius and dealing with the existing agreement.
Diego Garcia and Strategic Security
The importance of Diego Garcia goes well beyond the dispute over sovereignty.
The military base occupies a strategically significant position in the Indian Ocean and supports British and American military operations.
The UK government has therefore repeatedly emphasised the need to ensure that the base can continue operating for the long term.
Reuters reported that Burnham had stressed the importance of the base to British and allied security and said he wanted to work with both Washington and Port Louis to find a resolution.
This may provide an area of potential common ground between Burnham and Trump.
Both governments have an interest in maintaining the military capabilities associated with Diego Garcia. The disagreement concerns how the political and legal arrangements surrounding the territory should be structured.
Ukraine and Defence
Ukraine is another likely subject for discussion.
Burnham made his first foreign visit as prime minister to Kyiv, where he emphasised Britain’s support for Ukraine.
The UK has also been seeking greater American involvement in European security, particularly in relation to air defence and military assistance.
For Burnham, discussions with Trump could therefore provide an opportunity to reinforce the argument that continued American support remains important to European security.
At the same time, Britain faces the challenge of maintaining its own defence commitments.
The broader question is how European countries should share responsibility for their security while continuing to rely on American military capabilities.
The Special Relationship Under Pressure
The phrase “special relationship” has long been used to describe the close connection between Britain and the United States.
But that relationship has never meant that the two countries agree on every foreign-policy question.
The current differences over the Chagos Islands, Ukraine, Israel and other international issues demonstrate the limits of complete alignment.
Le Monde described the relationship as being tested by disagreements over foreign policy, security and the broader direction of Western alliances. It also noted that intelligence cooperation, defence links and nuclear cooperation remain important foundations of the relationship.
Burnham’s task is therefore not simply to avoid disagreement.
Instead, the meeting will demonstrate whether Britain can maintain close cooperation with Washington while pursuing policies that do not always match Trump’s preferences.
The Question of Personal Chemistry
Maguire’s argument also reflects the importance often attached to the personal relationships between political leaders.
Trump is known for placing considerable emphasis on personal interactions in diplomacy. Burnham, meanwhile, is beginning his premiership at a time when Britain is attempting to establish a new international role.
Their first meeting could therefore influence the tone of future UK-US discussions.
However, one meeting cannot resolve every disagreement.
The two governments have extensive institutions, diplomatic channels and military relationships that operate regardless of individual personalities.
The practical test will be whether the meeting creates enough trust to allow difficult disagreements to be managed constructively.
A Broader British Foreign-Policy Challenge
Burnham’s meeting with Trump also comes as Britain attempts to strengthen relationships elsewhere.
The prime minister is expected to use his time at the United Nations to promote British involvement in international diplomacy, support Ukraine and present the UK as a country capable of working with both the United States and European partners.
The Associated Press reported that Burnham intends to seek common ground with Trump while also presenting Britain as an important player in areas such as artificial intelligence and international security.
That balancing act could become one of the defining features of Burnham’s foreign policy.
Britain has left the European Union but remains economically and geographically connected to Europe. At the same time, the United States remains its most important defence partner.
Burnham therefore faces pressure to maintain both relationships without allowing one to undermine the other.
What a Successful Meeting Would Involve
Rather than measuring the encounter through dramatic statements, the practical outcomes will matter most.
Issues such as defence cooperation, Ukraine, intelligence sharing, trade and the future of Diego Garcia could all provide concrete areas for discussion.
There may also be disagreements that cannot be resolved in a single meeting.
The Chagos dispute is a clear example. Burnham has already acknowledged that no final resolution currently exists, while saying he intends to work with Mauritius and the United States towards one.
That suggests the meeting should be viewed as one stage in a longer diplomatic process rather than a moment when every dispute will suddenly disappear.
Conclusion
Kevin Maguire’s call for Andy Burnham to be “bold” reflects his own political assessment of how the British prime minister should approach Donald Trump.
The underlying diplomatic reality is more complicated.
Burnham and Trump are entering their first face-to-face meeting with a mixture of shared interests and significant disagreements. Britain wants to preserve close security cooperation with the United States, while Washington has raised objections to some British foreign-policy decisions.
The Chagos Islands dispute is perhaps the clearest example. Burnham has reiterated that Britain wants to secure the future of Diego Garcia while continuing discussions with Mauritius and the United States.
Ukraine, defence, trade and Britain’s wider international role will provide additional areas for discussion.
The meeting in New York therefore represents an important early test of how Burnham intends to conduct Britain’s relationship with Washington.
Whether the two leaders agree on every issue is less important than whether they can establish a working relationship capable of handling disagreements.
For Burnham, the challenge is to demonstrate that Britain can remain a close American ally while retaining the ability to articulate its own interests and policies.
For Trump, the meeting provides an opportunity to assess Britain’s new prime minister directly.
And for the wider UK-US relationship, the encounter will offer an early indication of how the traditional alliance may function during a period of considerable geopolitical uncertainty.